DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application filed 31 October 2023, wherein claims 1-30 are pending and ready for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4 March 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 27-30 do use the word “means for…” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification by the examiner finds that the corresponding structure are the processor disclosed in the specification in paragraph [0036] and the software disclosed in paragraph [0026].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (US 2023/0099975 A1), hereafter referred Hahn, in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0174682 A1), hereafter referred Li. Hahn was cited by applicant’s IDS filed 4 March 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Hahn teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, (Hahn, [0039]; control unit refer to a hardware device that includes a memory and a processor where the memory is configured to store program instructions and the processor is specifically programmed to execute the program instructions) configured to cause the UE to:
transmit a sidelink transmission associated with a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index (Hahn, Fig. 7, [0067]-[0075] and [0079]; each of the UEs 235 and 236 may be configured to perform sidelink communications using a resource pool configured by the base station 210 for each sidelink control information and sidelink data and the sidelink control information may be configuration information for (re)transmission or blind (re)transmission of sidelink data and may include the MCS index which indicates an MCS used for (re)transmission of sidelink data); and
selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the MCS index and the quantity of retransmissions (Hahn, Fig. 7, [0075]-[0082]; the base station may be configured to generate configuration information for sidelink communication for retransmission of sidelink data, where the SCI may include information elements described in Table 3 and the examiner contends Table 3 shows that the retransmission is performed selectively according to the MCS index (MSC index in Table 3) and the maximum number of retransmissions (Number of reserved resources in Table 3)).
Hahn does not expressly teach monitor a quantity of retransmissions associated with the sidelink transmission within a time window.
However, Li teaches monitor a quantity of retransmissions associated with the sidelink transmission within a time window (Li, [0224]-[0227]; the TX UE can monitor and detect the canceling indication for the reserved retransmissions, e.g. repetition or HARQ based retransmissions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to perform control to handle an inter-UE collision between sidelink transmission and downlink/uplink transmission (Li, [0006]).
Regarding claim 18, Hahn teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
transmitting a sidelink transmission associated with a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index (Hahn, Fig. 7, [0067]-[0075] and [0079]; each of the UEs 235 and 236 may be configured to perform sidelink communications using a resource pool configured by the base station 210 for each sidelink control information and sidelink data and the sidelink control information may be configuration information for (re)transmission or blind (re)transmission of sidelink data and may include the MCS index which indicates an MCS used for (re)transmission of sidelink data); and
selectively retransmitting the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the MCS index and the quantity of retransmissions (Hahn, Fig. 7, [0075]-[0082]; the base station may be configured to generate configuration information for sidelink communication for retransmission of sidelink data, where the SCI may include information elements described in Table 3 and the examiner contends Table 3 shows that the retransmission is performed selectively according to the MCS index (MSC index in Table 3) and the maximum number of retransmissions (Number of reserved resources in Table 3)).
Hahn does not expressly teach monitoring a quantity of retransmissions associated with the sidelink transmission within a time window.
However, Li teaches monitoring a quantity of retransmissions associated with the sidelink transmission within a time window (Li, [0224]-[0227]; the TX UE can monitor and detect the canceling indication for the reserved retransmissions, e.g. repetition or HARQ based retransmissions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to perform control to handle an inter-UE collision between sidelink transmission and downlink/uplink transmission (Li, [0006]).
Regarding claim 23, Hahn teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE) (Hahn, [0039]; control unit refer to a hardware device that includes a memory and a processor where the memory is configured to store program instructions and the processor is specifically programmed to execute the program instructions), cause the UE to:
transmit a sidelink transmission associated with a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index (Hahn, Fig. 7, [0067]-[0075] and [0079]; each of the UEs 235 and 236 may be configured to perform sidelink communications using a resource pool configured by the base station 210 for each sidelink control information and sidelink data and the sidelink control information may be configuration information for (re)transmission or blind (re)transmission of sidelink data and may include the MCS index which indicates an MCS used for (re)transmission of sidelink data); and
selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the MCS index and the quantity of retransmissions (Hahn, Fig. 7, [0075]-[0082]; the base station may be configured to generate configuration information for sidelink communication for retransmission of sidelink data, where the SCI may include information elements described in Table 3 and the examiner contends Table 3 shows that the retransmission is performed selectively according to the MCS index (MSC index in Table 3) and the maximum number of retransmissions (Number of reserved resources in Table 3)).
Hahn does not expressly teach monitor a quantity of retransmissions associated with the sidelink transmission within a time window.
However, Li teaches monitor a quantity of retransmissions associated with the sidelink transmission within a time window (Li, [0224]-[0227]; the TX UE can monitor and detect the canceling indication for the reserved retransmissions, e.g. repetition or HARQ based retransmissions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to perform control to handle an inter-UE collision between sidelink transmission and downlink/uplink transmission (Li, [0006]).
Regarding claim 27, Hahn teaches an apparatus (Hahn, [0039]; control unit refer to a hardware device that includes a memory and a processor where the memory is configured to store program instructions and the processor is specifically programmed to execute the program instructions) for wireless communication, comprising:
means for transmitting a sidelink transmission associated with a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index (Hahn, Fig. 7, [0067]-[0075] and [0079]; each of the UEs 235 and 236 may be configured to perform sidelink communications using a resource pool configured by the base station 210 for each sidelink control information and sidelink data and the sidelink control information may be configuration information for (re)transmission or blind (re)transmission of sidelink data and may include the MCS index which indicates an MCS used for (re)transmission of sidelink data); and
means for selectively retransmitting the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the MCS index and the quantity of retransmissions (Hahn, Fig. 7, [0075]-[0082]; the base station may be configured to generate configuration information for sidelink communication for retransmission of sidelink data, where the SCI may include information elements described in Table 3 and the examiner contends Table 3 shows that the retransmission is performed selectively according to the MCS index (MSC index in Table 3) and the maximum number of retransmissions (Number of reserved resources in Table 3)).
Hahn does not expressly teach means for monitoring a quantity of retransmissions associated with the sidelink transmission within a time window.
However, Li teaches means for monitoring a quantity of retransmissions associated with the sidelink transmission within a time window (Li, [0224]-[0227]; the TX UE can monitor and detect the canceling indication for the reserved retransmissions, e.g. repetition or HARQ based retransmissions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to perform control to handle an inter-UE collision between sidelink transmission and downlink/uplink transmission (Li, [0006]).
Regarding claims 2, 19, 24, and 28, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1, the method of claim 18, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, and the apparatus of claim 27 above. Hahn does not expressly teach wherein the time window is fixed.
However, Li teaches wherein the time window is fixed (Li, [0301]-[0313]; SLCIMonitorOffset parameter is configured in the SIB and sets the time window that the UE need to monitor the SL-CI to be a set amount of number of slots or symbols on the sidelink).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to perform control to handle an inter-UE collision between sidelink transmission and downlink/uplink transmission (Li, [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1 above. Further, Hahn teaches wherein a congestion level associated with the UE is associated with a priority threshold, and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission based at least in part on a priority of the sidelink transmission not satisfying the priority threshold (Hahn, [0125]-[0128]; the sidelink data may be repeatedly transmitted n times by using a resource scheduled for transmission of other sidelink data (i.e. sidelink data having a lower priority)).
Claims 3, 17, 20, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Li as applied to claims 1, 18, 23, and 27 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0178290 A1), hereafter referred Lee.
Regarding claims 3, 20, 25, and 29, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1, the method of claim 18, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, and the apparatus of claim 27 above. Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein the time window is based at least in part on a periodicity of a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) grant associated with the sidelink transmission.
However, Lee teaches wherein the time window is based at least in part on a periodicity of a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) grant associated with the sidelink transmission (Lee, [0186]-[0190]; the counting of expected collisions within the window can be applied to UE with sidelink SPS configuration or to UE configured with periodical resources).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lee in order to efficiently transmit and receive a signal for sidelink communication (Lee, [0025]).
Regarding claim 17, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1 above. Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to refrain from retransmitting the sidelink transmission, and the one or more processors, to cause the UE to refrain from retransmitting the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to remove one or more resources from a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) grant associated with the sidelink transmission.
However, Lee teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to refrain from retransmitting the sidelink transmission, and the one or more processors, to cause the UE to refrain from retransmitting the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to remove one or more resources from a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) grant associated with the sidelink transmission (Lee, [0186]-[0190]; the counting of expected collisions within the window can be applied to UE with sidelink SPS configuration or to UE configured with periodical resources).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lee in order to efficiently transmit and receive a signal for sidelink communication (Lee, [0025]).
Claims 4, 5, 21, 22, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Li as applied to claims 1, 18, 23, and 27 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0150150 A1), hereafter referred Wu.
Regarding claims 4, 21, 26, and 30, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1, the method of claim 18, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, and the apparatus of claim 27 above. Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein selectively retransmitting the sidelink transmission includes refraining from retransmitting the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the quantity of retransmissions not satisfying a retransmission quantity threshold.
However, Wu teaches wherein selectively retransmitting the sidelink transmission includes refraining from retransmitting the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the quantity of retransmissions not satisfying a retransmission quantity threshold (Wu, [0113]-[0114]; the UE may consider retransmissions based on a timeout threshold and a maximum quantity of retransmissions that fall within an interval).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Wu in order to evaluate transmission performance related to a network node (Wu, [0002]).
Regarding claims 5 and 22, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1 and the method of claim 18 above. Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein selectively retransmitting the sidelink transmission includes selectively retransmitting the sidelink transmission based at least in part on a counter or a timer.
However, Wu teaches wherein selectively retransmitting the sidelink transmission includes selectively retransmitting the sidelink transmission based at least in part on a counter or a timer (Wu, [0113]-[0114]; the UE may consider retransmissions based on a timeout threshold and a maximum quantity of retransmissions that fall within an interval).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Wu in order to evaluate transmission performance related to a network node (Wu, [0002]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Li further in view of Wu as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Freda et al. (US 2021/0014791 A1), hereafter referred Freda.
Regarding claim 6, Hahn in view of Li further in view of Wu teaches the UE of claim 5 above. Hahn in view of Li further in view of Wu does not expressly teach wherein the counter or the timer is based at least in part on a speed associated with the UE.
However, Freda teaches wherein the counter or the timer is based at least in part on a speed associated with the UE (Freda, [0195]-[0201]; UE speeds exceeds or is below a certain value and expiry of a timer related to UE activity are triggers that can impact the UE operation of processing retransmissions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li further in view of Wu to include the above recited limitations as taught by Freda in order to manage power consumption during operational needs (Freda, [0217]).
Regarding claim 7, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 5 above. Hahn in view of Li further in view of Wu does not expressly teach wherein the counter or the timer is based at least in part on a plurality of speeds associated with a plurality of UEs including the UE.
However, Freda teaches wherein the counter or the timer is based at least in part on a plurality of speeds associated with a plurality of UEs including the UE (Freda, [0195]-[0201]; UE speeds exceeds or is below a certain value and expiry of a timer related to UE activity are triggers that can impact the UE operation of processing retransmissions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li further in view of Wu to include the above recited limitations as taught by Freda in order to manage power consumption during operational needs (Freda, [0217]).
Claims 8-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 119232181 A, hereafter referred Yu.
Regarding claim 8, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1 above. Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to refrain from retransmitting the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the MCS index not satisfying an MCS index threshold.
However, Yu teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to refrain from retransmitting the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the MCS index not satisfying an MCS index threshold (Yu, p. 8, paragraph 2 – p. 9, paragraph 3; the current service is in the appointed service range and the MCS index value corresponding to the base station is higher than or equal to the index value threshold, determining that there is no target service).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yu in order to determine the working mode of the RRU (Yu, p. 3, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 9, Hahn in view of Li further in view of Yu teaches the UE of claim 8 above. Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein the MCS index threshold is based at least in part on a congestion level.
However, Yu teaches wherein the MCS index threshold is based at least in part on a congestion level (Yu, p. 8, paragraph 2 – p. 9, paragraph 3; the MCS index value threshold value varies and be provided with multiple congestion time thresholds to determine the congestion level division of congestion degree based on multiple congestion time thresholds).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yu in order to determine the working mode of the RRU (Yu, p. 3, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 10, Hahn in view of Li further in view of Yu teaches the UE of claim 8 above. Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to transmit the sidelink transmission with a transmission power that is based at least in part on the MCS index.
However, Yu teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to transmit the sidelink transmission with a transmission power that is based at least in part on the MCS index (Yu, p. 8, paragraph 2 – p. 9, paragraph 3; the MCS index value threshold value varies and be provided with multiple congestion time thresholds to determine the congestion level division of congestion degree based on multiple congestion time thresholds).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yu in order to determine the working mode of the RRU (Yu, p. 3, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 11, Hahn in view of Li further in view of Yu teaches the UE of claim 8 above. Hahn does not expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to transmit the sidelink transmission via one subchannel.
However, Li teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to transmit the sidelink transmission via one subchannel (Li, [0315]; the frequency region for the sidelink BWP can include the UE being configured with a number of subchannels that are part of the sidelink BWP).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to perform control to handle an inter-UE collision between sidelink transmission and downlink/uplink transmission (Li, [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1 above. Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to retransmit the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the MCS index satisfying an MCS index threshold.
However, Yu teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to retransmit the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the MCS index satisfying an MCS index threshold (Yu, p. 8, paragraph 2 – p. 9, paragraph 3; the current service is in the appointed service range and the MCS index value corresponding to the base station is lower than the index value threshold, determining that there is target service).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yu in order to determine the working mode of the RRU (Yu, p. 3, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 15, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1 above. Further, Hahn teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the priority of the sidelink transmission (Hahn, [0125]-[0128]; the sidelink data may be repeatedly transmitted n times by using a resource scheduled for transmission of other sidelink data (i.e. sidelink data having a lower priority)).
Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein the priority of the sidelink transmission is associated with an MCS index threshold and a transmission power, and wherein a congestion level associated with the UE is associated with a plurality of priorities including a priority of the sidelink transmission.
However, Yu teaches wherein the priority of the sidelink transmission is associated with an MCS index threshold and a transmission power, and wherein a congestion level associated with the UE is associated with a plurality of priorities including a priority of the sidelink transmission (Yu, p. 8, paragraph 2 – p. 9, paragraph 3; the MCS index value threshold value varies and be provided with multiple congestion time thresholds to determine the congestion level division of congestion degree based on multiple congestion time thresholds).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yu in order to determine the working mode of the RRU (Yu, p. 3, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 16, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1 above. Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein a priority of the sidelink transmission is associated with a plurality of congestion ranges including a congestion range associated with the UE, and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the congestion range.
However, Yu teaches wherein a priority of the sidelink transmission is associated with a plurality of congestion ranges including a congestion range associated with the UE, and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the congestion range (Yu, p. 8, paragraph 2 – p. 9, paragraph 3; the MCS index value threshold value varies and be provided with multiple congestion time thresholds to determine the congestion level division of congestion degree based on multiple congestion time thresholds).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yu in order to determine the working mode of the RRU (Yu, p. 3, paragraph 9).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2023/0198607 A1), hereafter referred Yang.
Regarding claim 13, Hahn in view of Li teaches the UE of claim 1 above. Hahn in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to retransmit the sidelink transmission based at least in part on a table that maps the MCS index to a retransmission quantity.
However, Yang teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively retransmit the sidelink transmission, are configured to cause the UE to retransmit the sidelink transmission based at least in part on a table that maps the MCS index to a retransmission quantity (Yang, [0029]; the MCS index values, number of transmitters to use, number of retransmissions, the power levels, etc. may be stored in database).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Hahn in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yang in order to determine the parameters and resources to use for transmissions (Yang, [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416